I think you might be a victim of your own logic, Jim.
You wrote:
> If the term (film noir) has expanded beyond what
it's meant to
> define, then it means that people are
commonly
> misunderstanding the term, not that "the languange
has
> expanded."
Okay, so what is it "meant to define"? Let's ask Rene.
> The term "film noir" was coined
> in 1946 (not 1960) by French critic Nino Frank
after
> seeing 6 recent
> Hollywood melodramas in one week: The
Maltese
> Falcon, Laura, Double
> Indemnity, Murder My Sweet & The Woman in
the
> Window. By your
> definition, the first two films aren't
noir.
What do you think, Jim?
>As for who coined the term film noir, and when it
was
>coined, I'll bow to you there.
So if the original term was meant to define something other
than what you're claiming (as you appear to accept), you are,
by your own definition,
"misunderstanding the term." As to the precise meaning of the
original term, James Naremore, in "More Than Night: Film Noir
In Its Contexts" suggests that the French critics who first
applied the term "film noir" in the mid-1940s (looks like you
were wise to bow to Rene) agreed on a formulation that
defined noir as, simply, "a kind of modernism in the popular
cinema." That's surely vague enough to keep everybody happy.
But it does, however, mean that your constraining definition
is significantly
"misunderstanding the term." You've perpetrated linguistic
expansion upon it.
Exeunt severally
Al
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Feb 2003 EST